Davis v. Peebles, 92-1234
| Decision Date | 05 July 1993 |
| Docket Number | No. 92-1234,92-1234 |
| Citation | 313 Ark. 654,857 S.W.2d 825 |
| Parties | Anita DAVIS, Appellant, v. Samuel PEEBLES, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
William M. Howard, Jr., Pine Bluff, for appellant.
C. Tab Turner, Sarah J. Heffley, Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant Anita Davis filed suit against Samuel Peebles, Thomas Humphries, and South Park Clinic. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both individuals and dismissed the complaint against the clinic because it was only a trade name. Appellant appeals only from the granting of the summary judgment in favor of Samuel Peebles.
Appellant's abstract is flagrantly deficient. In it, she lists the pleadings and orders and gives citations to the pages in the record where those items might be found. She fails to abstract the complaint, the answer, the motion for summary judgment, the affidavits supporting the motion, or the order granting the summary judgment.
An appellant's abstract or abridgement of the record should consist of an impartial condensation of the material parts of the pleadings, proceedings, facts, documents, and other matters in the record as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to the court for decision. Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 4-2(a)(6). The reason for the rule, as we have often explained, is that there is only one record and there are seven judges. It is impractical, and often times impossible, for all seven judges to attempt to pass around the one record, and we will not do so. Pennington v. City of Sherwood, 304 Ark. 362, 802 S.W.2d 456 (1991). Accordingly, the order appealed from is affirmed under Rule 4-2(b)(2).
Affirmed.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Baldwin v. Baldwin
...(1,419 page record was abstracted in four and a half pages); Sturch v. Sturch, 316 Ark. 53, 870 S.W.2d 720 (1994); Davis v. Peebles, 313 Ark. 654, 857 S.W.2d 825 (1993); Samples v. Samples, 306 Ark. 184, 810 S.W.2d 951 In other instances, this court and the court of appeals have reached the......
-
Muldrow v. Douglass, 93-719
...See Dixon v. State, 314 Ark. 378, 863 S.W.2d 282 (1993) (hearing, findings of fact, and orders not abstracted); Davis v. Peebles, 313 Ark. 654, 857 S.W.2d 825 (1993) (pleadings, motion for summary judgment, affidavits, and order not abstracted); Haynes v. State, 313 Ark. 407, 855 S.W.2d 313......
-
Chrysler Credit Corp. v. Scanlon, 93-1369
...the trial court's judgment for noncompliance with the rule. Sturch v. Sturch, 316 Ark. 53, 870 S.W.2d 720 (1994); Davis v. Peebles, 313 Ark. 654, 857 S.W.2d 825 (1994); Samples v. Samples, 306 Ark. 184, 810 S.W.2d 951 Affirmed. BROWN and ROAF, JJ., dissent. ROAF, Justice, dissenting. I do n......
-
McPeek v. White River Lodge Enterprises, 93-1267
...matters in the record as are necessary to an understanding of all questions presented to the court for decision. Davis v. Peebles, 313 Ark. 654, 857 S.W.2d 825 (1993). The reason for the rule, as we have often explained, is that there is only one record and there are seven judges. It is imp......